[I would add here: What if you created a network/service where these decisions were laid out transparently, IN ADVANCE...?! ]

2) All HTTP Redirects and URL tracking with Javascript add-ons (like in Google Analytics) contains some security and/or privacy concerns. Any redirect hop in particular could begin executing arbitrary code in your browser. If the hops are "good actors" only, that's more incidental...

3) Due to 2), I've long thought about creating a "raw HTTP request"-based "browser" (within a browser) of sorts for myself, that would strip out all unneeded Javascript/Ads, resolve redirects in a SAFE way by only handling the raw URLS, and displaying the end results in cleanly formatted ways a la Instapaper, ReadLater, etc.

I am actually pretty close to this now due to my other (main) development project. An affiliate or ad marketers nightmare, I know, but then again security concerns are only going up month after month.

I've long thought that a Web where any guileless click on a random link could open the victim up to significant security concerns is really unacceptable in the long run (and it is amazing that we have put up with it as long as we have). Not to speak of the pervasive privacy concerns...

4) For (hopefully) well-intentioned Affiliate Programs/marketers, there can be hope (as IMO this sort of thing from Pinterest will become standard across the industry more and more from here...):

The simple solution is to create URLs that include the affiliate ID as part of the canonical URL itself, minus any "?xyz=abc&..." querystring suffixes. In essence, an affiliate page for each affiliate, even though at the back end the server will handle things almost exactly the same as before, just that the server-side code needs to have the smarts to parse out the ID.---

In this context I would also like to remind everyone to turn off their "Chrome Helper", which auto-starts plugins like Flash video, and then override for the rare case that you actually want to see a video, and not just be assaulted by ads, often in auto-run mode no less...

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler strongly hinted Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas that he would propose net neutrality rules that treat broadband Internet service providers as utilities subject to more rigorous regulation than they have been to date.

But even just the very fact that the FCC has been forced to take this strong of an OVERT stance towards net neutrality, greatly improves the odds that the Web will remain free and open for years to come over where they were before.

Yes, should there be a Republican administration in 2017, there is a chance that they would try to undermine/reverse these steps within the bureaucracy as somehow "business unfriendly", but the backlash (from Silicon Valley, consumers, and SMBs/etc.) might be untenable even for them...

"...[Evan's] presentation at The Wall Street Journal's WSJD conference, in which he spoke about the power of mobile. Evans also gave the presentation at Andreessen Horowitz's a16z Tech Summit. ...excellent at crunching numbers and visually displaying what that data means in a meaningful way that makes sense."---

Which has led some to speculate that Google may not fully be able to shift to Native Ads, while Search hasn't been the dominant mobile use case overall, with that having shifted to (homescreen, native) Mobile Apps.

Ben Thompson of Stratechery recently put forth the interesting/provocative thesis that Google could likely miss the boat on Native Ads, as they're just not their "core DNA" expertise. While the jury is still out on that question, there some real parallels to MSFT's "peak power" (perceived) circa 2005: stratechery.com/2014/peak-google/

(Including the parallel between MSFT/IE and Google/Android, that as overall largely free/"moat"/defensive moves, they long-term might not have the overwhelming strategic impact hoped for, or suggested by initial run-away market share success:

IE went up to around 95% browser share, Android to around 80-85% smartphone OS share. But how much control will Google really have over the rising Chinese OEMs like Xiaomi in the long run...?)

Admittedly, Google has better C-level leadership than Microsoft had with Ballmer. But forever resting on the desktop Search Ads laurels is not a long-term option IMO. And current forays into a variety of retail/payments plays, while all interesting, COULD suffer the problem of "a bridge too far" brand extension.

Compare that Amazon (rightly) bought Zappos, but of course did NOT rename them to Amazon Shoes. Just as Google would very likely earn consumer cognitive dissonance with e.g. "Google Shoes". So the question is if things branded as "Google Shopping" or "Google Car Insurance" can really fly in a break-through way of that term. Always good to revisit one's Ries & Trout Positioning/Branding 101...

*UPDATE: Given that the recent round of funding now puts Uber's valuation of $41B (!) outside of the range of plausible acquisition by nearly anyone,*

...despite various recent blow-ups on both the regulatory pushback as well as bad PR fronts ("Spying on critical journalist suggestion"-gate...), it is worth thinking further about "What will be “uber-ified” next?" (both by Uber themselves, as well as by copycats/business-model "transfer" startups, of which there have been plenty asking the question:www.producthunt.com/e/uber-for-x).

On a recent HN thread, this interesting angle came up, which should interest the collaboration/swarm aficionados like :

"...1. Google invested in UberGoogle has invested over $250M in Uber through Google Ventures. [supposedly at the then $3.8B valuation back then that bought them about 7%?]...2. Self-driving CarsThere has been no shortage of media coverage for Google’s self-driving car initiative. While it seems likely that the cars will become the norm, it may take time before there is wide-spread adoption by the general public.

Uber’s use of self-driving cars could help people familiarize themselves with the technology and ignite faster adoption. Removing human drivers would increase efficiency (less wrong turns or mistakes), increase margins (you don’t have to pay the driver in a driverless car), ...

[...?! Or maybe car ownership will become a thing of the past. Period.]

3. Shopping ExpressShopping Express is starting to see increased adoption but it is still hampered by the limited workforce and vans. Using Uber’s platform, Google could empower anyone with a smart phone to become a Shopping Express delivery driver.

With shorter wait times and cheaper delivery, I’d expect to see even more people leveraging same-day delivery. We know that *Uber has run many tests in select markets to highlight their logistics power. This could even provide an acceptable intermediate step as we wait for aviation regulations to catch up with the drone industry.*

4. Google MapsUber was integrated into Google Maps back in May....5. CompetitionUber is in a battle with Lyft and Sidecar to win the ride-sharing market. Even with the first mover advantage, Uber is not out of the woods yet. An acquisition by Google would allow the company to leverage the resources of an international tech giant, while continuing to scale at an explosive pace.

6. Dynamic Pricing*Uber’s most underrated asset is the dynamic pricing algorithm that determines each fare.* It calculates distance, time, current demand, and traffic among other things. Google could leverage the formula to provide dynamic delivery pricing – flat delivery fees are outdated. This increased efficiency would motive drivers and ensure that there was always a delivery vehicle available regardless of the traffic or weather.

7. PriceGoogle is one of the only companies with the cash and equity on hand to pull this off. Uber was valued at $18.2 billion during their last funding round (remember Google has large equity stake)....This deal makes sense from both a utility and economics perspective. If it came to fruition, it would be the kind of blockbuster acquisition that defines a decade and changes the trajectory of an entire industry."---

*For once I agree with Elgan, and not because I buy into the Jeff Jarvis "Euro Technopanic" meme* (there are real and valid concerns with Google's and others' practices and quasi monopolies; notwithstanding the fact that European companies and regulators are going about most of this in the most ham-fisted ways possible...):

Google should leave, and force the Europeans to push some serious innovation of their own (search is NOT really rocket science despite what Google would like to have people believe...), *innovation that they should have never abdicated in the first place.* E.g. where were the European efforts to save Nokia from MSFT destruction/take-over, given that Mobile/smartphone know-how has turned into the first quasi strategic competency of the 21 Century?

It shouldn't take exactly $Billions to form a "Euro core tech competencies" consortium to cover a lot of the bases. If they can't be bothered to do this, then Europe truly has earned the "right to be forgotten" en bloc IMO...

Spanish lawmakers did something dumb this week. They passed a new law that forces Google to pay news publishers a fee for sending valuable, monetizable content from Google News to their sites.

Lobbied by the Spanish Newspaper Publishers' Association (AEDE), the government determined that the summaries and thumbnail photos that accompany links in Google News constitute an infringement of copyright. Therefore, they argued, Google should pay the copyright holders for it.

Because Google doesn't place advertising on Google News sites, the so-called "Google Tax" would require Google to lose money for the privilege of sending valuable traffic to news sites.

So Google will do the inevitable and rational thing: It'll close Spain's version of Google News.

(The law goes into effect in January, but Google will close the news site on Tuesday.)

After Google's announcement, the AEDE freaked out and called for the government to stop Google News from being closed, saying: "AEDE requires the intervention of Spanish and community authorities, and competition authorities, to effectively protect the rights of citizens and companies."

Note that they're not requesting a removal of the law; they're asking the government to force Google News to stay open and also pay the Google Tax.

The Spanish episode is part of a larger trend among regulators and politicians in Europe to strongly reduce the influence of U.S. Internet companies in general -- and to damage Google in particular.

Google needs to leave Europe just like they left China, and for the same reason:

Today in History: Federal Judge Finds Microsoft Holds Monopoly Power and Abuses ItOn November 5, 1999 — 15 years ago today — U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his initial “Findings of Fact” regarding an antitrust suit brought against Microsoft by the U.S. Justice Department and 20 states’ attorneys general. The suit was filed on May 18, 1998 and charged that Microsoft abused its dominant market position to thwart competition.

Judge Jackson’s findings, in a final paragraph, sharply defined what the Judge viewed as Microsoft’s abusive monopolistic practices:

Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest.

At least one analyst speculated that the testimony of Bill Gates by video deposition in this case may have led to the Microsoft Board exerting pressure on Gates to relinquish his chief executive officer (CEO) position. Many people thought Gates damaged Microsoft’s reputation by appearing arrogant, elusive, and unhelpful in answering questions. Other observers said that Gates merely was playing “the deposition game.” In any event, within two months of this finding of facts by Justice Jackson, Bill Gates resigned as CEO, and Steve Balmer replaced him.

On June 7, 2000, Judge Jackson ordered that Microsoft be split into two competing companies. Microsoft appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court, and the top court refused to hear the appeal before a lower court made a decision on the appeal. The appeals process went on until November 2, 2001, when Microsoft reached an agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to be more transparent in sharing programming language with third-party developers. In retrospect, Balmer’s biggest achievement as CEO may have been in holding Microsoft together and not further aggravating its relationship with antitrust officials in Washington, D.C.

"...1. Google invested in UberGoogle has invested over $250M in Uber through Google Ventures. [supposedly at the then $3.8B valuation back then that bought them about 7%?]...2. Self-driving CarsThere has been no shortage of media coverage for Google’s self-driving car initiative. While it seems likely that the cars will become the norm, it may take time before there is wide-spread adoption by the general public.

Uber’s use of self-driving cars could help people familiarize themselves with the technology and ignite faster adoption. Removing human drivers would increase efficiency (less wrong turns or mistakes), increase margins (you don’t have to pay the driver in a driverless car), ...

[...?! Or maybe car ownership will become a thing of the past. Period.]

3. Shopping ExpressShopping Express is starting to see increased adoption but it is still hampered by the limited workforce and vans. Using Uber’s platform, Google could empower anyone with a smart phone to become a Shopping Express delivery driver.

With shorter wait times and cheaper delivery, I’d expect to see even more people leveraging same-day delivery. We know that *Uber has run many tests in select markets to highlight their logistics power. This could even provide an acceptable intermediate step as we wait for aviation regulations to catch up with the drone industry.*

4. Google MapsUber was integrated into Google Maps back in May....5. CompetitionUber is in a battle with Lyft and Sidecar to win the ride-sharing market. Even with the first mover advantage, Uber is not out of the woods yet. An acquisition by Google would allow the company to leverage the resources of an international tech giant, while continuing to scale at an explosive pace.

6. Dynamic Pricing*Uber’s most underrated asset is the dynamic pricing algorithm that determines each fare.* It calculates distance, time, current demand, and traffic among other things. Google could leverage the formula to provide dynamic delivery pricing – flat delivery fees are outdated. This increased efficiency would motive drivers and ensure that there was always a delivery vehicle available regardless of the traffic or weather.

7. PriceGoogle is one of the only companies with the cash and equity on hand to pull this off. Uber was valued at $18.2 billion during their last funding round (remember Google has large equity stake)....This deal makes sense from both a utility and economics perspective. If it came to fruition, it would be the kind of blockbuster acquisition that defines a decade and changes the trajectory of an entire industry."---

Most interesting, +Alex Schleber . If nothing else, Uber is setting the seeds and culture for a more distributive collaborative economy. I like the five points, as those of us who worked at fleshing out the Glia model, addressing those five points would lead to a massive amount value creation. Muchos gracias for the ping on this one.